We Belong
UNICEF Canada defines belonging as feeling loved, supported, and connected through caring relationships with family, friends, teachers, community members, culture and even pets. It also involves addressing loneliness, emotional challenges, and restoring relationships affected by issues such as trauma, stress, or poverty. Strong, healthy connections are critical to belonging. Our research asks: How does digital technology shape young people’s social networks and their connections to family, friends, and community?
Watch Digital Portraits
Hear directly from Canadian Gen Z youth in these short videos. Filmed 2024–2025.
to choose from 28 videos
Research Snapshot
by: Dr. James Stinson
Digital technologies have profoundly reshaped how youth form, maintain, and experience social relationships and belonging. From the widespread use of social media to the emerging role of AI companions, these technologies place multiple and often mixed or contradicting pressures on youth’s sense of connection, community, and identity.
In the Canadian context, where geography, diversity, and inequality factor heavily into social relationships, the influence of digital technologies on social belonging is especially complex. This review traces core themes and tensions:
(a) how social media and internet use shape youth friendships and peer networks,
(b) how these technologies contribute to or undermine community and belonging, and
(c) the emerging role of AI in youth relational ecologies and its implications for belonging.
Digital technologies and youth friendships / peer networks
One of the central questions is how online and offline friendship networks overlap—or differ—for adolescents in a digital age.
Al-Jbouri, Volk, Spadafora, and Andrews (2024) provide one of the few Canada-based empirical studies that directly map adolescents’ in‐person and online friendship networks within schools. They find high—but not complete—overlap between in-person and online networks; friendships are often co-constructed across both spheres, but some ties exist only online and some only offline (Al-Jbouri et al., 2024). Their path analyses show that greater smartphone use—and use of platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—is positively associated with how important adolescents consider technology for social connection, which in turn is positively linked to friendship closeness (Al-Jbouri et al., 2024). In other words, youth who engage more intensively with social media tend to see technology as integral to their relationships, and this belief is linked to feeling closer with peers.
These findings echo broader theory that describes social media as a ‘transformative relational context’ (a setting where relationships with others can help shape who you are / change how you think or feel).
Nesi and colleagues (2018) argue that social media transforms peer relationships by increasing the frequency/immediacy (how often and quickly people connect), amplifying demands (the pressure to respond), altering interaction quality (e.g. changing how meaningful a conversation feels), enabling compensatory behaviors (using online to make up for limits in offline contact), and creating novel relational forms (e.g. lasting online friendships).
Social media thus does not only mirror offline life, it reshapes our relationships / relational dynamics (Nesi et al., 2018). The affordances of asynchronous communication, persistence of posts, audience breadth, and replicability all shift how adolescents negotiate intimacy, conflict, inclusion, and exclusion.
Yet digital friendships and closeness are not without tensions. Dunn, Kim, Poucher, Ellard, and Tamminen (2024) in a Canadian qualitative study of adolescent female soccer players articulate how social media can foster peer communication and bonding, but also magnify social comparison, exclusion anxiety, and pressure to present an ideal self. Some participants described withdrawing from posting to avoid social judgement, which in turn hindered relational visibility and belonging.
Along similar lines, Dumas, Maxwell-Smith, Tremblay, Litt, and Ellis (2020) found that, over time, youth who engage in “deceptive like-seeking” on Instagram—using strategies to boost likes—end up reporting lower feelings of peer belonging and reduced self-esteem. In other words, efforts to manage one’s image for social approval can backfire and weaken genuine connection.
These dynamics are particularly salient in a Canadian context, as indicated by Wong et al. (2022) using data from the Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey. Although their study is cross-sectional, they report associations between social media use and relational-connection variables, suggesting that the more youth use social media, the greater the potential influence on relationships and feelings of connection (Wong et al., 2022). Zhang and Browne (2025), in a psychometric network analysis of Canadian youth, further complicate the picture: they observe correlations linking digital media use, social isolation, and mental health symptoms mediated by relational mechanisms. Their findings imply that in some cases, high digital connectivity may make relational strain or exposure to loneliness worse, rather than better (Zhang & Browne, 2025).
Miconi, Santavicca, Frounfelker, Mounchingam, and Rousseau (2024) examine Canadian youth and find and links between high digital media use, with depressive symptoms, and support for violent radicalization. While their focus is more on ideological outcomes, their results underscore how being intensely immersed in digital relationships and social domains can intersect with young people’s vulnerabilities around belonging in troubling ways (Miconi et al., 2024).
Beyond the domain of closeness, digital media also enables network diversity and builds social capital. Kim and Kim (2022) show in a study of young adults that social media use increases communication network heterogeneity — that is, exposure to more diverse contacts — which fosters social capital - the value gained from relationships/social networks - and civic engagement.
Though not youth-specific, this finding suggests that social media may broaden relational horizons beyond one’s immediate peer group. In the same vein, Robards and Bennett (2011) describe how youth create “MyTribe” groups on social network sites, forming affinity-based belonging that transcends geography or conventional subcultures. Godard and Holtzman (2024) similarly find that online communities structured around racial identity can foster meaningful social support outcomes, particularly for multiracial youth. These affinity spaces may offer relational depth that youth cannot find locally.
However, these opportunities are not universally accessible. Hübner Barcelos and Alberto Vargas Rossi (2014) highlight how adolescents both consume and resist social media, navigating paradoxes of pressure and autonomy. Some youth limit their platforms or postings to manage relational stressors. Kardefelt-Winther (2017) cautions that time-on-technology must be considered in broader life context: digital use is neither inherently harmful nor beneficial in isolation, but its relational effects depend on what it displaces or supplements.
For youth with particular constraints, digital media can open new relational space. Kaur and Saukko (2022) show that social media can mitigate isolation for youth with disabilities by offering more accessible communication, though design, stigma, and platform affordances still limit full inclusion. McKie, Lachowsky, and Milhausen (2015) report on the positive impact of technology for young gay men in Canada: digital platforms allow them to connect with partners and communities that may be geographically or socially unavailable locally. In marginalized contexts, youth may rely disproportionately on digital networks for relational connection (Oliver & Cheff, 2014).
photo of glass heart and the Yukon River by: Sydney Sinclair
Digital Belonging, Community, and
Social Integration
Friendships are only one piece of youth relational life; the broader question is how digital technologies affect community, belonging, and social integration. In Canada, ‘sense of community belonging’ has been linked to health and social outcomes (Kitchen, Williams, & Chowhan, 2012). As relational life becomes hybrid, belonging is less anchored solely in physical place.
Marlowe, Bartley, and Collins (2017) propose the idea of “digital belongings” — that is, overlapping identities of belonging in digital and analog spaces. For youth whose local settings may be exclusionary or indifferent, digital spaces can offer alternative community anchors. Burkholder, MacEntee, Mandrona, and Thorpe (2022) illustrate this in their work co-producing digital archives with 2SLGBTQ+ youth in Atlantic Canada during COVID-19. These youth used digital artifacts and narratives to assert identity, community memory, and mutual connection in periods of physical isolation. The archives functioned as relational and symbolic belonging spaces that might not exist offline.
Similarly, newcomer youth and diaspora youth often straddle multiple geographies of belonging. Barker (2021) explored how newcomers in Canada during COVID-19 used digital tools to integrate socially when in-person options were restricted. Digital platforms (e.g. messaging, video calls) became crucial mediators of connection, albeit imperfect substitutes for in-person integration. For immigrant and diaspora youth, digital communication often sustains transnational ties. Tiilikainen (2017) studied Canadian Somali youth and documented how sharing phone time with family reassured ties to heritage, and how digital communication facilitated diasporic belonging across borders. Veronis, Tabler, and Ahmed (2018) show how Syrian refugee youth in Ottawa used social media to build transcultural connections, supporting adaptation and mitigating isolation. These transnational relational networks can buffer youth against belonging deficits in the host society.
Digital belonging, however, can coexist uneasily with local belonging. Some youth situate themselves as hybrid actors, negotiating multiple affiliation demands (the pressures and expectations of belonging to different groups or relationships) (Tilleczek & Campbell, 2019). Tilleczek and Srigley (2016) conceptualize youth as “digital cyborgs” in relational life, arguing that identity, belonging, and sociality are increasingly mediated through technology. The boundary between online and offline belonging is porous; youth often see digital and analog selves as continuous rather than distinct.
During disruptive periods, digital belonging acquires outsized significance. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated this sharply: Brown, Browne, and the Child and Youth Planning Table (2024) examined youth in a Canadian community sample and found that changes in perceived belonging during lockdowns were linked to mental health trajectories. Digital means sometimes buffered declines in belonging but did not fully substitute for physical connectedness. Parent, Dadgar, Xiao, Hesse, and Shapka (2021) similarly find that social disconnection amid COVID-19 was mediated by youth attachment, fear of missing out, and smartphone use — digital use sometimes alleviated loneliness, but also exposed youth to relational anxiety over exclusion or missed digital events.
Dwyer (2024) reviews Canadian perspectives on loneliness and notes that youth and adults frequently cite digital communication as meaningful, even as many lament its insufficiency for deeper relational presence. Refol et al. (2025), reporting on qualitative Canadian data about social connection, emphasize that youth and communities view digital relationships as valid only when they feel meaningful, empathetic, and reciprocal; digital contact without depth is often seen as hollow.
Zhang and Browne (2025) extend this by showing that in a network of mental health symptoms and relational variables, digital media use is linked with isolation and symptom clustering — digital use is not a guaranteed buffer, but may amplify relational dependencies or strain in some contexts. Clayborne et al. (2025) likewise show that extreme digital media behaviors among Canadian youth are associated with lower positive mental health outcomes. They report that girls who engage in “constant” social media use are less likely to report high life satisfaction, autonomy, and relatedness, and that overall heavy screen time is correlated with poorer outcomes (Clayborne et al., 2025).
The Canadian public health report on mental health and problematic social media use (2022) identifies that roughly 6.85% of adolescents fall into problematic social media use categories and that higher risk is associated with poorer mental health indicators (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2022). These findings underscore that digital belonging must be measured not only in opportunities for connection but also in therelational quality of relationships, and mental health trade-offs.
AI, Companionship, and the Future of Youth Belonging
The rapid growth of AI “companions” represents a striking shift in the social landscape for adolescents. Until recently, conversational AI was largely framed as an educational or productivity tool, but platforms such as Character.AI, Replika, and Nomi are now marketed as friends, mentors, or partners. Scholars warn that these friction-free, always-available bots could recalibrate how teens learn social skills, manage disagreement, and practice empathy (Ciriello, Chen, Rubinsztein, Vaast, & Hannon, 2025; Kouros & Papa, 2024; Malfacini, 2025). While these agents may offer low-stakes interaction or emotional scaffolding for socially anxious youth, they also risk displacing authentic human relationships and normalizing the disclosure of private experiences to commercial entities (Packin & Chagal-Feferkorn, 2024; Ding & Barbic, 2025; Young et al., 2024).
While social media and the internet have long mediated youth relational life, the recent rise of AI “companions” introduces a new and more complicated layer. Brandtzaeg, Følstad, and Skjuve (2025) describe “emerging AI individualism,” where young people increasingly treat social AI as relational counterparts (a partner or friend they can interact with) rather than just tools. These agents offer constant availability, non-judgmental responses, and a semblance of intimacy, which some youth report as comforting (Malfacini, 2025). For some, AI companions may serve a scaffolded role for socially anxious or isolated youth. By providing low-stakes conversation or emotional regulation support, AI might help youth gradually build relational confidence. This possibility hinges on ethical design, boundary-setting, and youth awareness (Ciriello et al., 2025; Malfacini, 2025).
Yet researchers caution that such companionship can foster both support and withdrawal: if adolescents begin to prefer the predictable, friction-free presence of AI, they may invest less in the messier work of human relationships (Ciriello, Chen, Rubinsztein, Vaast, & Hannon, 2025). Kouros and Papa (2024) conceptualize AI companions as “digital mirrors” that reflect back aspects of the user’s preferences, identity, or mood. For adolescents still negotiating selfhood, these reflections matter: AI may reinforce certain self-views or preferences, and in so doing may also narrow exposure to relational difference or friction.
Meanwhile, Malfacini (2025) outlines both promise and peril: AI companions could scaffold emotional support or relational practice for isolated youth, but dependency, displacement of human relationships, and relational withdrawal are real risks. Packin and Chagal-Feferkorn (2024) underscore how addictive design can entice users to deepen engagement with AI, potentially at the expense of human connection. The relational costs of AI substitution are not purely speculative. As youth calibrate expectations based on AI responsiveness and validation, they may come to expect constant affirmation and low relational friction, making real-world relationships (with their inherent complexity) feel less tolerable. If AI becomes the standard of relational responsiveness, youth may undervalue or withdraw from human relationships that require effort, vulnerability, and repair.
A recent report by Common Sense Media entitled Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions, revealed that social AI companions are not a niche interest but a mainstream teen behavior (Robb & Mann, 2025). As founder James P. Steyer put it, these products are emerging “at a time when kids and teens have never felt more alone” and risk creating “a generation that’s replacing human connection with machines, outsourcing empathy to algorithms, and sharing intimate details with companies that don’t have kids’ best interests at heart” (Robb & Mann, 2025, p. 2). The report documents a remarkable level of adoption for a technology less than three years old: 72 percent of teens surveyed had used AI companions at least once and over half used them a few times a month or more.
About one in three teens reported using AI companions for social interaction and relationships—including role-playing, romantic interactions, emotional support, friendship, or conversation practice—and roughly the same proportion find conversations with AI companions as satisfying or more satisfying than those with real-life friends (Robb & Mann, 2025). At the same time, one in three teen users reported feeling uncomfortable with something an AI companion had said or done, and one in three had chosen to discuss important or serious matters with AI companions instead of real people. These patterns demonstrate that even when initial use is driven by entertainment or curiosity, the technology is already shaping teens’ social development and real-world socialization (Robb & Mann, 2025).
Common Sense Media’s risk assessment concluded that these products are unsuitable for minors, citing mental health risks, harmful responses and “dangerous advice,” and explicit sexual role-play as reasons for its recommendation that no one under 18 use them (Robb & Mann, 2025). The report highlights that the risks are especially acute for boys, teens struggling with their mental health, and those undergoing major life events or transitions—groups already vulnerable to technology dependence. Although most teens still prioritize real friendships (80 percent) and half express distrust of AI advice, younger teens show significantly more trust in AI companions than older teens, revealing an “AI literacy” gap.
This mirrors Common Sense Media’s earlier “Teens and Trust” report, in which more than six in ten teens said major technology companies cannot be trusted to prioritize their mental health, safety, and well-being (Robb & Mann, 2025). The organization argues that, left unchecked and unregulated, AI companions could reshape how an entire generation approaches relationships and emotional support. To address this, Common Sense Media is backing first-in-the-nation legislation to ban AI companion products for minors and calling for stronger age verification, privacy protections, and education for families about the documented dangers of these platforms (Robb & Mann, 2025).
Synthesis and
Policy Recommendations
Taken together, the research on internet, social media, and AI companions shows that digital technologies neither uniformly erode nor automatically strengthen adolescents’ social relationships; their effects are contingent on context, design, and youth agency. Across studies, 3 themes recur:
1) Digital platforms expand networks and can support belonging, especially for marginalized groups—such as 2SLGBTQ+ youth, newcomers, and youth with disabilities—who may find affirmation and community online (Burkholder et al., 2022; Kaur & Saukko, 2022; Veronis et al., 2018).
2) The same tools intensify risks of comparison, deceptive self-presentation, harmful content, and relational displacement (Dumas et al., 2020; Dunn et al., 2024; Zhang & Browne, 2025).
3) The rapid mainstreaming of AI companions adds a new layer of complexity. With 72 percent of teens having tried AI companions and over half using them regularly, many are confiding in or role-playing with bots instead of people, exposing themselves to privacy risks, harmful “advice,” and sexually explicit or manipulative content (Robb & Mann, 2025). Younger teens’ greater trust in AI underscores an urgent “AI literacy” gap.
These patterns point to clear policy and design priorities. At the platform level, social and AI systems should be built for relational augmentation rather than replacement, embedding features that foster empathy, reciprocity, and healthy boundaries (Ciriello et al., 2025; Malfacini, 2025). Regulators and industry should implement enforceable age verification, privacy protections, and bans on sexually explicit or dangerous content for minors, echoing Common Sense Media’s call for legislative guardrails on AI companions (Robb & Mann, 2025).
At the educational level, schools and community organizations should provide digital and AI literacy programs that teach youth—and their caregivers—about privacy, manipulation, and the limits of algorithmic empathy. Finally, governments and service providers should ensure equitable broadband access and culturally safe online spaces so that all Canadian youth can participate in digital life without exacerbating existing inequalities (Veenhof et al., 2008; Kitchen et al., 2012). Together, these measures can help steer rapidly evolving technologies toward strengthening rather than undermining authentic relationships and social belonging among young people.
How to Cite this Text: Stinson, J. (2025). We Belong. In Digital Wellbeing Hub. Young Lives Research Lab. https://www.digitalwellbeinghub.ca/we-belong — Funded by the Government of Canada.
Resources
*
Resources *
Explore Resources By:
Research – Reports, articles, findings, background reading
For Youth – Interactive tools, guides, and activities designed for youth
Supporting Youth – Resources for educators, parents, policymakers, and practitioners
Digital Futures for Children: Your Rights Online
Digital Futures for Children (LSE/UWA)
Resources for children and youth to learn about their digital rights, online belonging, and community.
Explore here
Canada’s First State of Youth Report
Government of Canada
Made in consultation with 1,000+ diverse youth on leadership, health, belonging, reconciliation, and digital futures.
Read report
Teaching Digital Well-Being: Evidence-Based Resources to Help Youth Thrive
Harvard Project Zero
Resources for educators and communities on digital wellbeing, belonging, and healthy connection.
Explore resources
People for Education: The Education Promise
People for Education (Canada)
Policy and research work on education, youth wellbeing, and impacts of digital tech (e.g., cell phone bans in schools).
Read here
Young People’s Sense of Belonging Online
Digital Wellness Lab
A research brief tackling how online spaces can bolster belonging — and also the paradoxes (harm vs. support).
Read brief
Well Beings: Conversation Card Deck
Young Lives Research Lab
An easy-to-play game designed to spark meaningful conversations about wellbeing in a digital age. Developed by our Canadian Youth Advisory Committee in the research project Partnership for Youth and Planetary Wellbeing.
Play Now
Safe Online Communities for Kids and Teens
InternetMatters.org
Advice on finding safe, welcoming online communities for belonging and connection. Please note: InternetMatters has partial funding and partnerships with big tech, potential for pro-big-tech bias.
Read guide
Students Commission of Canada (SCC)
Students Commission of Canada
National platform for youth to connect, share voices, and engage in projects both online and in person. The SCC is a key partner in the development of this Hub.
Visit SCC
Jack.org
Jack.org
Youth-led mental health network that empowers young people to create stigma-free, supportive communities.
Visit Jack.org
Archive Our Youth
Young Lives Research Lab
Explore and add to this time capsule of youth and planetary wellbeing in a digital age. Created by our Youth Advisory Committee in the Partnership for Youth and Planetary Wellbeing project.
Visit the Archive
4Rs Youth Movement – Resource Library
4Rs Youth Movement (Canada)
A national Indigenous-youth-led organization offering a wide range of free resources for education, leadership, reconciliation, wellbeing, and community connection. The library includes toolkits, guides, zines, reports, and videos co-created with youth, covering identity, culture, belonging, environment, and resilience.
Explore the library
Epic Hero Life Mastery Program
PhinkLife
A free online self-paced program designed to help young people build confidence, resilience, and purpose through practical tools and personal reflection. Includes interactive exercises and lessons framed around the “hero’s journey.” Recommended by the 4Rs Youth Movement.
Explore program
Advice for Neurodivergent Children Online
InternetMatters.org
Tailored guidance for neurodivergent youth on safe, supportive online connection. Explore guides to support keeping them safe. Notes: 1) InternetMatters is partially funded and in partnership with big-tech/big-media, potential for bias. 2) As our research snapshot notes, be mindful that sometimes efforts to ‘protect’ kids online become invasive surveillance that harms child/youth agency. Co-creating rules and protection measures with young people is advised.
Read here
U-Report Canada: Youth Voices on AI & Climate Change
UNICEF Canada
Interactive polls capturing youth perspectives on digital technology and global issues.
AI report Climate report
Centre of Excellence on Social Media & Youth Mental Health
American Academy of Pediatrics
Curated resources for educators, families, and clinicians to support healthy online belonging.
Explore resources
Meetup.com
Community platform
Community platform to join free meetups for hobbies, culture, and social belonging in local communities.
Visit Meetup
The 4Rs Framework
4Rs Youth Movement
Foundational framework document co-created with Indigenous youth and allies, outlining key values of respect, reciprocity, reconciliation, and relevance in youth work and education.
Read the framework (PDF)
A+ Alliance – for inclusive algorithms
Feminist Research Alliance
Global coalition advancing inclusive algorithms and digital systems that support equity and belonging.
Visit NowExplore More Dimensions of Wellbeing
Complete the Survey!
Join the research conversation and see what others are saying (no email required).
View Live Results
photo by: Emma Ann MacDougall
Works Cited
Al-Jbouri, E., Volk, A. A., Spadafora, N., & Andrews, N. C. Z. (2024). Friends, followers, peers, and posts: Adolescents’ in-person and online friendship networks and social media use influences on friendship closeness via the importance of technology for social connection. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 2, 1419756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdpys.2024.1419756
Barker, M. (2021). Social integration in social isolation: Newcomers’ integration during the COVID–19 pandemic. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 33(2), 34–45.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Skjuve, M. (2025). Emerging AI individualism: How young people integrate social AI into everyday life. Communication and Change, 1(1), 11.
Brown, B., Browne, D. T., & Child and Youth Planning Table of Waterloo Region. (2024). Youth mental health in a Canadian community sample during COVID-19: Exploring the role of perceived sense of belonging. Journal of Community Psychology, 52(6), 720–738.
Burkholder, C., MacEntee, K., Mandrona, A., & Thorpe, A. (2022). Coproducing digital archives with 2SLGBTQ+ Atlantic Canadian youth amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative Research Journal, 22(1), 24–41.
Caxaj, C. S., & Gill, N. K. (2017). Belonging and mental wellbeing among a rural Indian-Canadian diaspora: Navigating tensions in “finding a space of our own.” Qualitative Health Research, 27(8), 1119–1132.
Ciriello, R., Chen, A. Y., Rubinsztein, Z., Vaast, E., & Hannon, O. (2025). AI, all too human AI: Navigating the companionship/alienation dialectic. Communication and Change, 1.
Ciriello, R., Hannon, O., Chen, A. Y., & Vaast, E. (2024). Ethical tensions in human-AI companionship: A dialectical inquiry into Replika. In HICSS-57: Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences 2024. https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-57/cl/ethics/5
Davis, K. (2012). Friendship 2.0: Adolescents’ experiences of belonging and self-disclosure online. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1527–1536.
Ding, X., & Barbic, S. (2025). Perception of AI use in youth mental health services: Qualitative study. Journal of Participatory Medicine, 17(1), e69449.
Dumas, T. M., Maxwell-Smith, M. A., Tremblay, P. F., Litt, D. M., & Ellis, W. (2020). Gaining likes, but at what cost? Longitudinal relations between young adults’ deceptive like-seeking on Instagram, peer belonging and self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106467
Dunn, R., Kim, J., Poucher, Z. A., Ellard, C., & Tamminen, K. A. (2024). A qualitative study of social media and electronic communication among Canadian adolescent female soccer players. Journal of Adolescent Research, 39(2), 272–297.
Dwyer, L. (2024). Canadian perspectives on loneliness; digital communication as meaningful connection. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1389099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1389099
Garrett, S. L., Burnell, K., Armstrong-Carter, E. L., Prinstein, M. J., & Telzer, E. H. (2023). Linking video chatting, phone calling, text messaging, and social media with peers to adolescent connectedness. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(4), 1222–1234.
Godard, R., & Holtzman, S. (2024). Finding similar others online: Predictors of social support outcomes in online communities for multiracial people. Current Psychology, 43(7), 5765–5778.
Hübner Barcelos, R., & Alberto Vargas Rossi, C. (2014). Paradoxes and strategies of social media consumption among adolescents. Young Consumers, 15(4), 275–295.
Hurem, A., Rowan, L., & Grootenboer, P. (2021, August). The link between social wellbeing, belonging, and connectedness of international students in Australian high schools. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 681956). Frontiers Media SA.
Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2017). How does the time children spend using digital technology impact their mental well‐being, social relationships and physical activity?: An evidence-focused literature review. (Unpublished literature review).
Kaur, H., & Saukko, P. (2022). Social access: Role of digital media in social relations of young people with disabilities. New Media & Society, 24(2), 420–436.
Kim, Y., & Kim, B. (2022). Effects of young adults’ smartphone use for social media on communication network heterogeneity, social capital and civic engagement. Online Information Review, 46(3), 616–638.
Kitchen, P., Williams, A., & Chowhan, J. (2012). Sense of community belonging and health in Canada: A regional analysis. Social Indicators Research, 107(1), 103–126.
Lalonde, M., & Castro, J. C. (2015). Amplifying youth cultural practices by engaging and developing professional identity through social media. In Youth Practices in Digital Arts and New Media: Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (pp. 40–62). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Macintosh, L., & Bryson, M. (2008). Youth, MySpace, and the interstitial spaces of becoming and belonging. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 133–142.
Malfacini, K. (2025). The impacts of companion AI on human relationships: Risks, benefits, and design considerations. AI & Society. (Confirm DOI or article number)
Manago, A. M., & Vaughn, L. (2015). Social media, friendship, and happiness in the millennial generation. In Friendship and Happiness: Across the Life-Span and Cultures (pp. 187–206). Springer.
Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A., & Collins, F. (2017). Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities, 17(1), 85–102.
McEwen, R. N. (2010). A world more intimate: Exploring the role of mobile phones in maintaining and extending social networks (Doctoral dissertation). (Institution omitted).
McKie, R. M., Lachowsky, N. J., & Milhausen, R. R. (2015). The positive impact of technology on young gay men’s dating and sexual relationships in Canada: Results from a focus group study. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(1), 19–36.
Miconi, D., Santavicca, T., Frounfelker, R. L., Mounchingam, A. N., & Rousseau, C. (2024). Digital media use, depressive symptoms and support for violent radicalization among young Canadians: A latent profile analysis. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01563-1
Norman, M. (2014). Online community or electronic tribe? Exploring the social characteristics and spatial production of an Internet hockey fan culture. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38(5), 395–412.
Oliver, V., & Cheff, R. (2014). The social network: Homeless young women, social capital, and the health implications of belonging outside the nuclear family. Youth & Society, 46(5), 642–662.
Packin, N. G., & Chagal-Feferkorn, K. (2024). This is not a game: The addictive allure of digital companions. Seattle University Law Review, 48, 693–? (Confirm full page range)
Parent, N., Dadgar, K., Xiao, B., Hesse, C., & Shapka, J. D. (2021). Social disconnection during COVID-19: The role of attachment, fear of missing out, and smartphone use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 748–763.
Refol, J., Raufi, S., Delgado-Ron, J. Á., Mulligan, K., Hill, T. G., Benoit, C., Coplan, R. J., et al. (2025). Diverse community perspectives on public health guidelines for social connection: A qualitative study in Canada. Health Promotion International, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaf131
Robards, B., & Bennett, A. (2011). MyTribe: Post-subcultural manifestations of belonging on social network sites. Sociology, 45(2), 303–317.
Robb, M. B., & Mann, S. (2025). Talk, trust, and trade-offs: How and why teens use AI companions. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/report/talk-trust-and-trade-offs_2025_web.pdf
Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Chaput, J. P., & Hamilton, H. A. (2019). Social media use, school connectedness, and academic performance among adolescents. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(2), 189–211.
Savci, M., Akat, M., Ercengiz, M., Griffiths, M. D., & Aysan, F. (2022). Problematic social media use and social connectedness in adolescence: The mediating and moderating role of family life satisfaction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(4), 2086–2102.
Savolainen, I., Kaakinen, M., Sirola, A., Koivula, A., Hagfors, H., Zych, I., Paek, H.-J., & Oksanen, A. (2020). Online relationships and social media interaction in youth problem gambling: A four-country study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218133
Shah, H. A., & Househ, M. (2023). Understanding loneliness in younger people: Review of the opportunities and challenges for loneliness interventions. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 12(1), e45197.
Sitinjak, C., Kristiyani, V., & Handoko, D. (2025). From Likes to Bonds: A scoping review on the impact of social media on youth social interaction patterns. Nusantara Journal of Behavioral and Social Science, 4(3), 145–160.
Tiilikainen, M. (2017). ‘Whenever mom hands over the phone, then we talk’: Transnational ties to the country of descent among Canadian Somali youth. Migration Letters, 14(1), 63–74.
Tilleczek, K., & Campbell, V. M. (2019). Youth in the digital age. Routledge.
Tilleczek, K. C., & Srigley, R. (2016). Young cyborgs? Youth and the digital age. In Routledge Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood (pp. 289–300). Routledge.
Varadi, A. L. (2025). “TikTok isn’ta Hobby”: Social media (ted) connections, identities, and leisure among contemporary Canadian high school-aged youth. Youth & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X251338315 (Confirm page numbers)
Veenhof, B., Wellman, B., Quell, C., & Hogan, B. (2008). How Canadians’ use of the Internet affects social life and civic participation. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Veronis, L., Tabler, Z., & Ahmed, R. (2018). Syrian refugee youth use social media: Building transcultural spaces and connections for resettlement in Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 50(2), 79–99.
Waygood, E. O. D., Olsson, L. E., Taniguchi, A., & Friman, M. (2020). The role of children’s independent mobility and social media use for face-to-face social interaction with friends. Transportation, 47(4), 1987–2009.
Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (2008). Imaging, keyboarding, and posting identities: Young people and new media technologies. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 25–47). MIT Press.
Winstone, L., Mars, B., Haworth, C. M., & Kidger, J. (2021). Social media use and social connectedness among adolescents in the United Kingdom: A qualitative exploration of displacement and stimulation. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11740-w
Wong, S. L., King, N., Gariépy, G., Michaelson, V., Canie, O., King, M., … Pickett, W. (2022). Adolescent social media use and its association with relationships and connections: Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children, 2017/2018. Health Reports, 33(12), 14–?
Yavich, R., Davidovitch, N., & Frenkel, Z. (2019). Social media and loneliness — Forever connected? Higher Education Studies, 9(2), 10–21.
Yoon, K. (2018). Multicultural digital media practices of 1.5-generation Korean immigrants in Canada. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 27(2), 148–165.
Young, J., Jawara, L. M., Nguyen, D. N., Daly, B., Huh-Yoo, J., & Razi, A. (2024, May). The role of AI in peer support for young people: A study of preferences for human- and AI-generated responses. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18).
Zhang, J., & Browne, D. (2025). Digital media use, social isolation, and mental health symptoms in Canadian youth: A psychometric network analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000456
Recent Comments
Only comments that meet our community standards are shown.